Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
You've got no conceptual scheme about how subjectivity works, at all. I provided it, and demonstrated it's use. You've got nothing, you go.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne
- Thread starter *blank*
- Start date
You've got no conceptual scheme about how subjectivity works, at all. I provided it, and demonstrated it's use. You've got nothing, you go.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
(Nazi Germany: A New History_ by Klaus Fischer,pages 39, 40)
“There was considerable cross-fertilization of racial ideas and even
personal contacts between very respected academics, on the one hand,
and racial popularizers, on the other. In 1900, for example, the arms
manufacturer FriedrIch Albert Krupp sponsored an essay competition on
the subject, “What can we learn from the principles of Darwinism and
its application to the inner political development and the laws of the
state?” The panel of judges was chaired by the social Darwinist Ernst
Haeckel, and the majority of the contestants were believers in Aryan
superiority and endorsed some form of anti-Semitism. First prize in
the competition went to a Munich physician by the name of Wilhelm
Schallmeyer, who colored all human activities with the crude social
Darwinian brush of survival of the fittest and recommended benign
neglect of the racially weak specimens. Schallmeyer strongly believed
that the Aryan race represented the apex of human achievement and that
stringent eugenic efforts, preferably state supported, would be
required to keep the Aryan race pure and predominant.
Another contestant in Krupp’s competition, Ludwig Woltman, who
was awarded the third prize, later received much renown by publishing
a racial journal called Politisch-Anthropologische Revue (1902).
Woltman’s journal, however, was only one of several scholarly journals
dedicated to racial studies. One of the most “respectable” was the
Archiv fur Rassen und Gesellschaftsbiologie, published by Alfred
Ploetz, the founder of the eugenic movement in Germany. Ploetz’s
publication became a forum for avant-garde racial ideas. Ploetz later
coined the phrase “race hygiene,” founded a secret Nordic society, and
was lavishly rewarded for his racial contributions with a university
chair by Adolf Hitler. As Leon Poliakov points out, some of the chief
eugenicists and geneticists of the next generation the scientists, in
other words, who flourished under the protective mantle of National
Socialism were influenced by Woltman and Ploetz. Among this group we
find Eugen Fischer, Fritz Lenz, and Otmar Verschuer, the man who
served as a mentor to the future “Angel of Death” at Auschwitz, Dr.
Josef Mengele. The most influential of these men was Eugen Fischer,
who applied Mendel’s laws to racial hygiene. In 1934 he boasted that
he was the first scientist to promote Woltman’s ideas within the
academic community and to have “inflamed young hearts with enthusiasm
for racial science.” Fischer’s colleague, Fritz Lenz, was a disciple
of Alfred Ploetz and a frequent contributor to his racial journal.
Before the outbreak of World War I, Ploetz’s Revue was avidly read by
many German academics; it became a clearinghouse for all sorts of
racial doctrines, including the pseudoscientific rantings and
ruminations of Fritsch and Lanz von Liebenfels.
Thus, by a circuitous route we return to Adolf Hitler, whose
racial image of the world was not the product of his own delusion but
the result of the findings of “respectable” science. When Hitler read
Fritsch or Liebenfels, he merely absorbed ideas that were widely
entertained in both academic and popular circles. The message embodied
in these doctrines was unmistakable: any living organism is engaged in
a ceaseless struggle for existence and is doomed to extinction if it
does not fight. Nations, like individuals, are also engaged in a
ceaseless conflict in which only the fittest can hope to survive. The
fighting quality of a nation depends upon its racial purity and its
ability to breed the fittest specimens in the form of productive
workers, savage fighters, and charismatic leaders. Those who defile a
race of people Jews, Gypsies, Asiatic inferiors must be eliminated
through appropriate state measures. Of all the human racial stocks,
the Aryan race clearly represents the apex of human achievement; and
since Germany is the homeland of the Aryan race, the German people are
charged with a sacred mission to propagate the Aryan race and dominate
the world. Racial mongrelization, however, has gone so far that the
hour may be late indeed. Only state intervention can protect the Aryan
race from further infections by inferior races. In 1913 Eugen Fischer
boldly prophesied “with absolute certainty” that all Europeans would
become extlnct unless governments, especially the German government,
developed and implemented a coherent racial policy.Adolf Hitler
provided that policy.”
(M. Burleigh, Ethics and Extermination – The racial state revisted)
“In contrast to this rather marginal reactionary figure (Gobineau),
the British naturalist Charles Darwin enjoyed enormous international
prestige, with his work on natural selection appealing to diverse
political constituencies, united in the belief that his findings had
prescriptive applicability to the society of man. His cousin Francis
Galton (1812-1911) for whom a chair was established at University
College, London (a bastion of anti-Establishment educational
progressivism), coined the term ‘eugenics’ to denote the science of
‘fine breeding’. Social-Darwinists, an unsatisfactory umbrella term
covering a multitude of persuasions, shared the view that mankind
should take charge of its own evolutionary process. Some believed that
this should be achieved by doing nothing, so that the denizens of East
End London slums would die through processes of auto-extermination.
Others recommended various combinations of philoprogenitive measures,
or positive eugenics, to encourage enhanced reproduction among the
‘fit’; with negative procedures, such as sterilization (either
voluntary or compulsory) which would curb the fertility of the ‘unfit’
parts of the population. Being modern, progressive and scientific,
these ideas appealed across the political spectrum, including English
Fabian Socialists such as Sydney and Beatrice Webb, co-founders of the
London School of Economics, or the German Socialist doctor Alfred
Grotjahn, for whom they became a means of eradicating the marginal
Lumpenproletariat. In Germany, one of their most influential exponents
was the zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), originator of a
philosophy known as Monism, who, enthusing over what he probably
wrongly took to be ancient Spartan practice, recommended the killing
of the mentally and physically detective in the interests of
strengthening the culturally and physically superior ‘central type of
people’, whose most valuable part was the Indo-Germanic ‘race’.
Already in the hands of Haeckel, these questions swam into the
dangerous orbit of health and emotional costs, a trend which would be
accelerated by the financial exigencies occasioned by the First World
War. A further aspect of these developments is most strikingly
represented by the racial hygienist Alfred Ploetz (1860-1940), namely
the idea that the health of society, construed as an atemporal genetic
collective, should be patrolled by medical experts, who would
determine who should marry or reproduce, or in other words, what type
of people should be born. Scope for this interventionist power-seeking
on the part of the medical profession and others was dramatically
enhanced as the rather modest concerns in this area of the early
nineteenth-century small state were replaced by the big government
reaching into most areas of life characteristic of the twentieth
century.
(Poliakov, The Aryan Myth)
“It was primarily in Germany, however, where racist science and
scientific anti-Semitism took root. In a book entitled Darwin,
Deutschland und die Juden, the author demanded to take into account
“the findings of the Darwinian doctrine” and stated that “a struggle
for survival was taking place between a productive GermanoAryan race
and parasitary Semites, thus promulgation of an anti-Judaic
legislation was scientifically justified”
(_12 year Reich: A Social History of Nazi Germany_ by Richard Grunberger p298)
Since Nazi ideology leaned heavily on Darwinist notions, the Party’s
education pioneers … like to talk of the Adolf Hitler Schools
Institutionalizing the principle of continuous selection.”
Much easier to just ignore your pure illogicality. Have a wonderful life on the 10's of thousands of chemicals you cannot stop your body producing until the moment of your body's expiration.
outhouse
Atheistically
I keep him on ignore for complete failure to communicate.
outhouse
Atheistically
You have less then zero credibility, and thus you have no right to talk down to anyone from a point of not even having an education on the topic you chose to debate.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
I know I am right. I checked it myself. Subjectivity works by choosing about what the agency of a decision is. That procedure results in an opinion.
You've got nothing.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
It is not easy to ignore what I write, because I write plain easy to understand facts. Which is why all the atheists panic about what I write.
It's not what you Islamic theists write that is the problem it's the evil you are capable of doing. Remember Paris.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
It's like a nazi pointing out the attrocities of communists.
Whatever the attrocity perpetrated you would always want to bring the perpetrator to justice, and that would always mean to talk about what the perpetrator feels, their emotional life. To see as fact which options they had available to choose, and then judge as opinion what the agency of those decisions is.
Creationism rules the courts of law, or else we are back to the modernity of systematic industrial genocide.
So you are the communist pointing out the atrocities of nazis?
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
You point out the attrocities of people who reject subjectivity, while you reject it yourself.
Oh. So Islamic theist creationist Muslim terrorists reject subjectivity too?
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Yes. Of course. They don't do love and such by expression of emotion with free will, same as you don't.
I see. So since both theist creationists and atheist evolutionists can "reject subjectivity" there's no reason to single out evolutionists.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
It is the commonly human head vs heart struggle at the basis, and some ideology or philosophy then serves as a catalyst for this commonly human failing.
And most certainly evolution theory is such a catalyst, driving people to reject subjectivity.
And since theist creationists reject subjectivity too theism and creationism are also catalysts?
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
You just have to look at the logic used, the definition of terms can vary. Atheists say to accept free will is real, by which they mean they could not have done otherwise than they did. They do not accept free will is real at all, eventhough they say to accept it.
You use the exactsame logic as nazi's, communists, muslim terrorists, whatever label you or they put upon it, is secondary.
The question is if someone is forced to a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, or if they arrive at the conclusion in a free way by choosing it. You, nazi's, muslim terrorists use a logic of being forced to a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is. I would imagine muslim terrorists use scripture as facts about good and evil, where you use natural selection theory as facts about good and evil. It is still just the commonly human head vs heart struggle, the head encroaching on the heart, competing fact against opinion to the destruction of opinion.
Where choosing is defined as making an alternative future the present, and agency is defined as that which makes a decision turn out the way it does. Of course atheists, materialists, nazi's, communists, muslim terrorists use a different definition of choosing and agency.
And that is the plain truth of it, easy for anybody to see if they are willing to look. The corny old truths about the bad people ignoring the heart, emotions, subjectivity, are simply right.
Last edited:
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
One doesn't need factual certitude to call some woman beautiful, or to call you evil. One needs emotions, confidence, judgement, subjectivity.
Define "evil".